Mail: a truly despicable article ("nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death")

[gosub]

OK, well

1. The PCC doesn't fine newspapers (http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDE5OA). The BBC is regulated by OfCom.

2. A very good question indeed. Why have the PCC at all?

I work in an industry that is goivernment regulated, as opposed to self regulated like the media and finance, I find our regulators largely toothless as involves dragging them to court for trials too complicated for the average jury to comprehend so they usually don't bother, though I would accept self regulation has done a lot to put it in the mire.

If Stephen Gately's family do not complain (I think they will, and those involved here should cc help to them) this probably is the best case to bring about change within press complaints, what with the Chairman of Procedures and Standards nuetralized by conflict of interest...
but then that for me is the one thing that really needs changing. Mr Dacre in his role as Daily Mail Editor has demonstrated what he thinks standards are, I would hope the rest of the media can see that in his other PCC role he can only drag journalism into disrepute.

 

[Diamond]

What, that the press should vaguely behave themselves? Broadly yes I do. My point is that much as the DM shored up it's 'ban this filth' credentials with Sachsgate, a bunch of liberals saying 'ban this filth' is materially no different.

Firstly, I don't think people are reacting in quite the same way that they did with Sachsgate.

I think what most people are interested in seeing from the Mail is an admission that they made a mistake and subsequently a full apology.

Secondly, the Sachsgate-Moir paralell only really works in terms of form. Materially there was a difference with regard to the tone and purpose of the sentiments.

There is a danger that in pointing out the similarities between the two occurences with regard to their anti-democratic special interest group format and with regard to the smug self-congratulation as moral arbiters that flowed after the events, you miss the moral point and falls into the trap of moral equivalence.

 

[kyser_soze]

I work in an industry that is goivernment regulated, as opposed to self regulated like the media and finance, I find our regulators largely toothless as involves dragging them to court for trials too complicated for the average jury to comprehend so they usually don't bother, though I would accept self regulation has done a lot to put it in the mire.

FSA/SFA perchance?

 

[kyser_soze]

Firstly, I don't think people are reacting in quite the same way that they did with Sachsgate.

I think what most people are interested in seeing from the Mail is an admission that they made a mistake and subsequently a full apology.

Secondly, the Sachsgate-Moir paralell only really works in terms of form. Materially there was a difference with regard to the tone and purpose of the sentiments.

There is a danger that in pointing out the similarities between the two occurences with regard to their anti-democratic special interest group format and with regard to the smug self-congratulation as moral arbiters that flowed after the events, you miss the moral point and falls into the trap of moral equivalence.

I didn't bring Sachsgate up in the first place, and was responding to the poster that did. I agree there are substantial differences between the two, and that the comparison is only really valid in looking at group behaviours, rather than the actual meat of the initial complaint.

Personally I'm with you - an apology and admission of 'We were wrong to print this' is about as far as it should go, but that's me...

 

[gosub]

FSA/SFA perchance?

No, still in aluminium tube import export Finance is self regulating, I still have dinner table arguements with compliance officers that still reckon FSA do a wonderful job

 

[trashpony]

Okay, I am looking at the PCC's website and the Chairman of the PCC is not Paul Dacre, it's Baroness Buscombe. Dacre is Chair of the Code Committee which is made up of journos.

The independent Chairman is appointed by the newspaper and magazine publishing industry. The Chairman must not be engaged in or, otherwise than by his office as Chairman, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines. The current Chairman is Baroness Buscombe.

So Baroness Buscombe will decide who will investigate the complaints made about the Moir article. Dacre is not allowed to be a part of that investigation under the Conflicts of Interest rules of the PCC

All members of the Commission are bound by the law relating to directors of
companies. They must act solely in the best interests of the Commission, uninfluenced
by the possibility of personal benefit for themselves, their families, firms, employees,
friends or other bodies of which they may be members, directors or trustees. They
should be mindful that they are involved in exercising a judicial function which
requires them to avoid potential and actual conflicts of interests.

A Press member will not be sent any papers, or be involved in consideration of any
complaint involving his/her own newspaper, periodical or magazine.

So part one is done - they will investigate the complaint.

Part two is writing to the Daily Mail to ask them to retract the article. I am drafting something which I will bung up here for you to comment on before I put it on the fb page. After all, that's what the point of the group was, right?

Evidence, if it were needed, that this is not orchestrated in any way

 

[quimcunx]

Just to get my point home. The next time a newspaper runs an article that's offensive to say, the Christian Alliance, and that could be argued breaks the PCC code over something or other, would lead to X publication being fined (well, not at the moment) - presumably the response from this board would be to decry it as a bad judgement, against FoS etc. However, if it breaks the code than by the rules it's a good judgement.

I do understand what you're saying. I care about this because it offends me but I would be quite happy to see the christian alliance offended every day of the week. It's a personal thing and the rules could work for or against anyone's personal offensiveness map.

So we should all be allowed to challenge other's beliefs. The Daily Mail can challenge my belief that gay couples should be entitled to the same rights in law that married couples do. And I can challenge their belief that they can make as many snidey, underhand, misinformed and misleading smears on a particular death, civil partnerships and gay people generally, as they like.

This is what is happening. In the meantime the PCC code of practice, level of authority, and validity as a regulatory body run by the people it is set up to regulate is being tested.

 

[temper_tantrum]

So broadly, yes I do.

So your concern is about who applies the rules?

I think it's fairly clear that letting newspaper editors act as a self-regulating body leads to a pretty unsatisfactory pattern of results. That might not be too much of an issue if legal recourse was a realistic option for more people. But combined with our libel system, it's lethal.
Obviously the idea of imposing an independent regulator is difficult in the case of the media, because of the free speech issue. Letting the PCC members appoint the regulator would address that, but then you'd risk being back with the same problem of toothlessness and people living in other people's pockets.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the current system offers very little recourse for the vast majority of people (and perhaps too much recourse for the small minority, ie. those who can afford to employ Carter-Ruck).

 

[5t3IIa]

Okay, I am looking at the PCC's website and the Chairman of the PCC is not Paul Dacre, it's Baroness Buscombe. Dacre is Chair of the Code Committee which is made up of journos.



So Baroness Buscombe will decide who will investigate the complaints made about the Moir article. Dacre is not allowed to be a part of that investigation under the Conflicts of Interest rules of the PCC


So part one is done - they will investigate the complaint.

Part two is writing to the Daily Mail to ask them to retract the article. I am drafting something which I will bung up here for you to comment on before I put it on the fb page. After all, that's what the point of the group was, right?

Evidence, if it were needed, that this is not orchestrated in any way

:thumbup:

 

[Diamond]

There is another argument to be had about whether the role of the state or quasi-state bodies should be to regulate areas of society in this way at all.

Clearly the fashion at the moment is for more regulation rather than less and that does seem to encourage a strange kind of point scoring sensitivity in public life.

Where's that old corporate British spirit, eh?

*Sniffles. Blows nose on union jack*

 

[trashpony]

:thumbup:

How's this?

Paul Dacre
Editor
The Daily Mail
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT



Dear Mr (or is it Lord?) Dacre

I am writing to ask for you to retract Jan Moir’s article about Stephen Gately (originally entitled ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’) published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October 2009.

I am appalled that you found it fit to publish such odious material about a young man’s death, particularly on the eve of his funeral, causing additional distress to his family at a very painful time.

I understand that the PCC will investigate the matter in response to the unprecedented number of complaints received about the article. In recognition of this, and of the fact that this article was at best ill-judged and at worst, malevolent, I urge you to consider your position and retract the article in advance of that investigation.

Yours

 

[stethoscope]

Just Mr Dacre isn't it?

 

[5t3IIa]

How's this?

Paul Dacre
Editor
The Daily Mail
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT



Dear Mr (or is it Lord?) Dacre

I am writing to ask for you to retract Jan Moir’s article about Stephen Gately (originally entitled ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’) published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October 2009.

I am appalled that you found it fit to publish such odious material about a young man’s death, particularly on the eve of his funeral, causing additional distress to his family at a very painful time.

I understand that the PCC will investigate the matter in response to the unprecedented number of complaints received about the article. In recognition of this, and of the fact that this article was at best ill-judged and at worst, malevolent, I urge you to consider your position and retract the article in advance of that investigation.

Yours

Looks good to me, though the first sentence is slightly wet. But better minds than mine can rewroite it if they agree

 

[editor]

Posters seeking to indulge in personal, off topic bunfights are strongly recommended to take it to PM. Continuing disruption on this thread will not be looked upon kindly.

 

[temper_tantrum]

There is another argument to be had about whether the role of the state or quasi-state bodies should be to regulate areas of society in this way at all.

I don't think anyone has advocated a state body should regulate the press, have they? I certainly wouldn't support that.

The press should be self-regulating, but the current model of self-regulation isn't working.

 

[editor]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. Anyone posting up any more off-topic personal nonsense in this thread will be banned. Thanks.

 

[trashpony]

Looks good to me, though the first sentence is slightly wet. But better minds than mine can rewroite it if they agree

How about "I understand that you and your senior staff were all on the lash on Thursday night and so Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately (originally entitled ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’) published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October 2009 wasn't subject to your usual scrutiny. However, it is not too late to repair the damage done to your already slightly tattered reputation by issuing a retraction in advance of the PCC's investigation.

blah blah blah

 

[5t3IIa]

Lol - Moir is a freak!! From http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/10/19/how-organised-was-the-jan-moir-campaign/

Author: Phil Gahan
Comment:
Also i'd like to add that she wrote in similar style the week following the death of Princess Diana

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 36-year-old women do not just climb into chauffeur driven cars, and conveniently “forget” to put on their seatbelts."

Sound familiar? Thats from 1997.

 

[5t3IIa]

How about "I understand that you and your senior staff were all on the lash on Thursday night and so Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately (originally entitled ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’) published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October 2009 wasn't subject to your usual scrutiny. However, it is not too late to repair the damage done to your already slightly tattered reputation by issuing a retraction in advance of the PCC's investigation.

blah blah blah

tempting

I am sure your version is fine. EWhat does BK say?

 

[DotCommunist]

I think that just makes her a recycling lazy hack more than anything

 

[stethoscope]

How about "I understand that you and your senior staff were all on the lash on Thursday night and so Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately (originally entitled ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’) published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October 2009 wasn't subject to your usual scrutiny. However, it is not too late to repair the damage done to your already slightly tattered reputation by issuing a retraction in advance of the PCC's investigation.

blah blah blah

Nah... whether they were out on the lash or not, they should still be ensuring that their editorial scrutiny is in place. But funny nevertheless

 

[trashpony]

Lol - Moir is a freak!! From http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/10/19/how-organised-was-the-jan-moir-campaign/

Unless they're giving blowjobs obv

 

[trashpony]

Nah... whether they were out on the lash or not, they should still be ensuring that their editorial scrutiny is in place. But funny nevertheless

I won't really write that.

Can anyone track down his email address?

I will ask BK to have a look at the letter too. Not sure if she's around at the mo

 

[nick h.]

Would be good to put a list of specifics in the Dacre letter about bits of the article which are factually inaccurate, misleading or homophobic. Those can be singled out as mistakes to be retracted, whereas opinions can't.

"The ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see" - still can't believe I read that in a 'family newspaper' in a context other than, say, cannibals or paedophiles.

 

[nick h.]

Can anyone track down his email address?

If it follows the usual Mail format it will be paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk.

 

[trashpony]

Would be good to put a list of specifics in the Dacre letter about bits of the article which are factually inaccurate, misleading or homophobic. Those can be singled out as mistakes to be retracted, whereas opinions can't.

"The ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see" - still can't believe I read that in a 'family newspaper' in a context other than, say, cannibals or paedophiles.

Yeah you're right. Unfortunately I have a load of stuff to do before a conference call in 15 mins so I'm not going to be able to do anything until this evening but if anyone else has got time to cobble something together (loads of info in the links on the fb site) please do.

This isn't orchestrated, it's democracy in action

 

[nick h.]

Might be worth listening to the PM programme at 5 on R4. It's their kind of story. Plus it's listed as a top story on the BBC News home page.

 

[5t3IIa]

Yeah you're right. Unfortunately I have a load of stuff to do before a conference call in 15 mins so I'm not going to be able to do anything until this evening but if anyone else has got time to cobble something together (loads of info in the links on the fb site) please do.

This isn't orchestrated, it's democracy in action

We can send it out as a message to all the group members. Make it easy as pie to c/p into an email and Dacre's inbox will fill up overnight.

Who own the paper? They can have it to.

 

[trashpony]

We can send it out as a message to all the group members. Make it easy as pie to c/p into an email and Dacre's inbox will fill up overnight.

Who own the paper? They can have it to.

I think it needs a bit more welly before we send it out as nick h. suggests.

Associated Newspapers owns the DM which I think is wholly owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. I will investigate who the majority shareholders are (probably City institutions).

 

[5t3IIa]

Harold Jonathan Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere and some other names http://www.associatednewspapers.com/org_chart.pdf